Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Real covenants and easements or equitable servitudes are similar [9] and in 1986, a symposium discussed whether the law of easements, equitable servitudes, and real covenants should be unified. [4] As time passes and the original promisee of the covenant is no longer involved in the land, enforcement may become lax.
In most jurisdictions, courts routinely "blue pencil" or reform covenants that are deemed not reasonable. The blue pencil doctrine gives courts the authority to strike unreasonable clauses from a non-compete agreement, leaving the rest to be enforced, or actually to modify the agreement to reflect the terms that the parties originally could have and probably should have agreed to. [3]
In U.S. law, the legal concept of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose in the mid-19th century because contemporary legal interpretations of “the express contract language, interpreted strictly, appeared to grant unbridled discretion to one of the parties”. [1] In 1933, in the case of Kirke La Shelle Company v.
Land Law (restrictive covenants on land are imposed upon subsequent purchasers if the covenant benefits neighbouring land) Agency and the assignment of contractual rights are permitted. Third-party insurance - A third party may claim under an insurance policy made for their benefit, even though that party did not pay the premiums.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.
Lord Templeman held that the covenant could not be enforced because the covenant was positive. His judgment said the following. [1]Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by his predecessors without flatly contradicting the common law rule that a person cannot be made liable upon a contract unless he was a party to it.
A. L. Smith LJ came to the same conclusion, thinking that there was no hard-and fast rule “that every covenant in restraint of trade is ipso facto void if it is unlimited as to space,” and being apparently of opinion that the restraint in the present case, though unlimited in space, might yet be regarded as partial owing to the circumstance ...
In contract law, a non-compete clause (often NCC), restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party (usually an employee) agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer).